Over the course of 24 hours, two controversial television ads were released as part of the 2012 presidential election. The first came from the Priorities USA Action super PAC and showed a steel worker who got laid off by Bain Capital; the second was released by Mitt Romney's campaign, claiming President Obama is "dropping work requirements" from existing welfare law.
Both have struggled under scrutiny. The first is based on an entirely true story involving real people, but relies on a "tenuous chain of causality" in part of the ad. The second is based entirely on an obvious, blatant, shameless lie that has no basis in reality whatsoever.
I was curious to see how the political establishment would respond to this, but I was especially interested in the reaction from Time's Mark Halperin because of his role as an informal barometer of the establishment's attitudes. Consider this item from this afternoon.
The right is up in arms over Harry Reid's accusation about Romney's taxes and about the new Obama Super PAC ad suggesting Mitt Romney is responsible for a woman's death.
The left is up in arms over the Republican TV ad on the President and welfare reform.
Based on the reactions in press releases, on Twitter, and on the web, I believe the following equation is accurate, despite media censure of both sides: Republican back-down + Democratic back-down = 0
My concern with the analysis is the drawing of equivalencies' where none exist. Harry Reid passed along an unsubstantiated rumor, which I've repeatedly said is unfair. A super PAC played fast and loose with a timeline, which is a misleading element in an otherwise sound commercial.
But of the three messages in question, only one is a blatant, demonstrable lie -- and it's the one followed by an "I approve this message" tagline from a man who intends to be president of the United States in six months.
For that matter, Mitt Romney has begun to shape his entire presidential campaign around the lie -- a racially-charged lie dealing with a substantive policy position Romney used to support until the president agreed with him -- while Obama hasn't mentioned or referenced the dubious claim in the Priorities USA Action ad at all.
My fear is, analyses like Halperin's leave people with the impression that deception is just part of the game -- "both sides" are doing it; neither side is apologetic; we should be equally disappointed with everyone.
But that's an incomplete look at what's happening in this campaign. There are qualitative differences between a PAC fudging a timeline in an otherwise accurate ad and a presidential hopeful making up policy claims out of whole cloth that are the exact opposite of reality because he wants working class whites in the Midwest to think the African-American president wants to "just send you your welfare check" (the exact wording from Romney's new ad).
The differences matter, and the equivalencies leave the public with a distorted picture.
Leave a Comment:
Harry Reid doesn't have bad bone in his body - I don't doubt someone told him the truth about romney taking losses for 2008 - 2009 at the very least. this guy is all about avoiding taxes - should we or would we be surprised? After all the birth certificate crap the Romney let his pal Trump trump up, I think he has some good for the goose and gander stuff coming.
Note to Mitt: We still want to see your taxes. What we have seen wouldn't get you elected dog catcher (he's on the roof)!!
Here's the thing: Romney can call Reid a "liar" all he wants, but the law has clear recourse if a falsehood is incorrectly associated with a person, taking from him or her a good name and reputation.
It's called libel. The standards are higher for public figures, but malice aforethought is easily aforethought when it comes to politicians dishing on each other.
Funny thing about libel, in the US at least. The absolute and perfect defense against an accusation of libel is TRUTH. Glorious, isn't it?
In other words, if Reid's claim is a lie, is false, Romney has an open and shut case in court, not that he needs the money. He'd win, hands down.
The case would probably be over in less than an hour. No media circus, just one big reveal and a judge's ruling. Here are 10 years of tax returns. Is the claim true or false? If false, here's a cash payment (and public restoration of his reputation) for Romney.
What? You mean there aren't grounds for libel here? Why not? Maybe because the claim is not PROVABLY FALSE?!
Go figure.
You know, there are a lot of people who are starting to think Obama got into Columbia as a foreign exchange student. It would certainly explain his Kenya birthplace bio. How exactly does Harry Reid pay for the Ritz Carlton on a Govt salary? Inside land deals? What about Nancy Pelosi's inside trading?
Are these claims true or false? Hmmmm.
You'll notice, also, that neither McCain nor anyone on his former campaign staff has, as far as I'm aware, claimed that Harry Reid is mistaken.
chris:
"Here's the thing: Romney can call Reid a "liar" all he wants, but the law has clear recourse if a falsehood is incorrectly associated with a person, taking from him or her a good name and reputation.
It's called libel. The standards are higher for public figures, but malice aforethought is easily aforethought when it comes to politicians dishing on each other."
You got every single thing wrong, not easy to do, even for a non-lawyer.
Exactly correct, bb,
So now all robme has to do is to release his taxes, prove Reid a liar, and sue him for libel!
Get to work letting robme know about this ASAP!
Chris
Libel is for written lies or defamation of character. I think the word you're looking for is slander. Slander is for spoken lies or defamation of character.
Yep , A LOT , you , orally taites , and the bat @!$%# crazy crew
I also heard, Shooter, that Obama is currently President of the United States of America. That can't be true!! [ Is the newest Obama can't be one of us patriots conspiracy theories-- the thing about being a foreign exchange student? Wow. ]
The distinction between libel and slander are quite blurry in a digital age where everything is written on the ethers, with a much further distribution than the distance the vocal projection of the spoken word can go (slander cases were always smaller than libel, because the voice doesn't carry as far as the written word).
But no, I got none of it wrong, I can assure you. Sen. Harry Reid has issued numerous written statements, reiterating his claim. He's even placed it into the public record on the floor of the Senate.
It's very sad that trolls have to work so hard to contradict precise factors in the law. Y'all are really reaching.
It is true that public figures rarely bring libel cases (except in the UK, where truth is not a defense and the courts are definitely funky on the subject). The reason is the malice aforethought requirement (for those who remember, the Paul Newman/Sally Field film Absence of Malice deals with this). All Romney has to do to show malice is prove that Harry Reid is his enemy and intends to assist in his political defeat with potentially underhanded methods. Malice, to be sure.
I repeat, if Mitt Romney feels his reputation has been unfairly impinged upon by Sen. Harry Reid, he has direct recourse in the courts. We do not have to suffer the unfair besmirching of our public reputations.
All he has to do, to AUTOMATICALLY win his case, restore his reputation, and extract from Harry Reid a sizeable hunk O cash is bring the lawsuit, show how his name has been unfairly and wrongly dragged through the mud with an UNTRUE accusation.
The judge (or jury, I think you can request one) can easily decide this overwhelmingly black and white issue, and viola! Justice is done. If Reid is lying, he will pay a damning price.
IF, and only if.
Ball is in Romney's court. Whining about how unfair life is doesn't prove a damn thing, except that he knows how to whine. Politics is hardball. Whiners can go home to Mommy.
And if Romney COULD prove Reid wrong, I believe he'd already be in court by now.
Sounds to me like Reid is playing an excellent chess game. Stoop to the gutter a bit to draw Romney out, force his hand. Even betray a bit of malice, just to sweeten the pot. Double dog dare, in other words.
Because the payoff, the payoff that both Reid and Romney are well aware of, is that once the tax returns are revealed to the public, the candidate is destroyed. He's out of the race. I feel quite certain about that. The ONLY way Romney will ever release those returns is with a subpoena, because of what is on them (however much his accountants are desperately trying to amend them after the fact). The stakes are high.
And Reid has the HIGHEST confidence in his information, from whatever source he really got the info from (I think Reid's biggest lies are about his source(s). I'd bet serious money some of those are Senate aides or staff from the McCain campaign, if not McCain himself-- but he could even have a backdoor source at FBI or IRS-- Washington is the Land O Leaks). Pelosi also revealed as much. Confidence is high. I'd be certain even if the wink winks and nudge nudges weren't there, just because of the amount of time that Romney has stonewalled this issue, at great political cost, a cost he could put a stop to instantly.
So the bit about Romney's tax returns I think is the the biggest open secret in DC, and Reid just got pissed off about everybody knowing and not being able to say, because no legal source can say.
So he went out on a limb and deliberately libeled Romney. Called his bluff, in other words. Show your cards or fold, buddy.
I should note that if Reid slandered Romney on the Senate floor (if), that is not subject to libel/slander law, because of something called Senate privilege. Also applies to courtroom procedures, but does not include press releases.
Touche Chris. I had forgotten about Senate privilege. I also forgot the written Senate record which of course can be edited.
Oh, I wasn't referring to you as a troll, Maria (you're my Newsvine friend!).
But outside of the senate, Reid has sent out Press Statements and releases, doubling down.
To make sure he throws down a BIG ASS gauntlet.
Cuz GOP bullies tend to slink away unless you make the challenge big enough and clear enough that they REALLY lose face in front of their buddies for blatant cowardice.
Here's an interesting update on this story from Greg Mitchell:
And he references another update on the story, from The Atlantic:
One flew over the cuckoo's nest.
In this instance, TWO flew over the cuckoo's nest.
In a week both birds will have disappeared from view, only to replaced by the Next New Outrage.
It doesn't matter how lamely GOP attempts to counter. Prepare for them to be further outraged by the oppo floodgates opening.
HuffPo: "Mitt Romney Started Bain Capital With Money From Families Tied To Death Squads"
I'm not making this up. Now Romney is going to have to defend his statements about how he learned so much from the oligarchs in Central America fighting for freedom by murdering tens of thousands of peasants.
It looks like Axelrod has one enfilading machine after another lined up for Mittens to walk into.... A person could almost feel sorry for Romney...
Until I remember what happened to Bishop Romero- a revolutionary motivated not by Castro, but by that other commie, Christ who said so many socialist things about caring for the poor and downtrodden, and had so many disparaging things to say about the wealth creators.
So let's see, Romney is a felon, kills people's wives, gets his money from death squads, and isn't kind to animals.
It's just another reason to ignore the left. When accusations are this far removed from reality, there's nowhere left to go in a "relationship". Oh well.
Sigh, if only Shooter would walk his "talk"!! But being a "true" Romneyite means you say and do ANYTHING for a little attention!
@JohnMesserly -
Okay, I looked up "enfilade" but I can't quite fit what I found into the context of your sentence. Care to enlighten me? Thanks.
I had in mind a gruesome kind of image- a sort of meat grinding machine where two 8 foot tall drums to the right and left of Romney lined with knives would pull him in. This is the military meaning where all weapons can simultaneously be brought to bear on the opponent. Knives of the Mass Media will likely be slicing him up and down his torso simultaneously as this story develops.
He will get cuts from the Right as well because the extreme AM radio types will get suckered into defending the "Freedom fighters"/ death squad families, thereby establishing an equivalency- further emphasizing the associational thinking between Romney type of 1% and the 1% of banana republics- the privileged rich.
Associating Romney's style of oligarchy with Central american oligarchs and raising some nasty questions in the minds of moderates, such as:
"Is the trajectory I want America going in? Extreme income inequality, and control of government by extreme right wingers/ ultra rich people like Romney?"
The Shooter gop actually imagine the conservative wall st capitalist have no blood on their hands , they will never educate themselves about the atrocities committed , all in the name of profits and the golden calf ... it must be nice to live in a lily white world of pink dragons and unicorns
I will acknowledge it can be a generational issue , the younger crowd are clueless about it all , and democrats do not have clean hands on the issue either
We should welcome honest dialog with conservatives, but as for the trolls, just put them on ignore. Simply click their names and in the upper right box for their page, click ignore. Cuts down on a lot of threadcrap posts, which will only intensify as we get closer to November.
Great point John , I always enjoy your comments too
I was on Greta Van Susterens sight last night briefly , and the right wingers were tearing romney apart , they are incensed by him , they rail on the man none stop , I will be shocked if it is a close race by the end of this , how motivated can people be to go vote for someone who makes them want to puke ?
the choice of watching foot ball and having a beer , or driving down and voting for a knuckle head? lol
I think we get too distracted by the Presidential race. If the 1%'s PACs manage to keep GOP control of the House they will have the last laugh, and Obama will be able to do nothing.
We need Nancy back in the driver's seat.
Then we will see some Progress again on jobs and climate change.
John
You have serious issues. Get some help.
In addition, if you want an actual comparison of "both sides" for the third-party ads, Rove's group and others have been running ads nonstop with messages that are also "a blatant, demonstrable lie." So what we actually have is:
In person -- Obama: some spin, but basically true; Romney: repeating blatantly false attacks
Campaign ads -- Obama: some spin, but basically true; Romney: blatantly false attacks
Surrogates -- Harry Reid making unsubstantiated claims; Romney's surrogates repeating blatantly false attacks
Third-party ads -- Dems: Bain attacks true but make the connection seem closer than it is; GOP: a variety of blatantly false attacks
Media verdict: Both sides do it. (What, you didn't think they were actually paying attention to any of those distinctions, did you?)
Unfortunately when it comes to false equivalences the GOTP and their media surrogates rule! Harry Reid has always been considered a fair minded guy, nice, amiable, willing to compromise to get the deal done. Mittens from what we've seen and what he has shown will take the easy way out, never met a deal he won't make money off of, is an entitled elitist, never met a lie he wouldn't tell, has NO character, has NO understanding of those not in his economic bracket!
I may not always agree with President Obama - but so far he's so way ahead of Rawmoney in character, compassion for Americans, intelligence - there is no competition!
OBAMA 2012!!
FFS, the whole "fudging the timeline" thing is bogus. The man lost his job and insurance in 2001. His wife lost her job and insurance in 2002 or 2003. She got sick, he says, "a little after he lost his job" but didn't go to the doctor until 2006 because they were broke and had no insurance. That's when they found out she had a Stage IV tumor.
If the "fudging" is a fight over whether a year or two constitutes "a little after," that's just asinine. If the "fudging" is Mitt's claim he wasn't running Bain in 2001 because he was busy, busy, busy with the Olympics, but not too busy to, say be involved in that deal the Italians are so p.o.'d about, that's also asinine.
But it looks to me like the "fudging" our Media Titans are tsk-tsking is the notion that the Stage IV tumor discovered in 2006 must have just popped into existence a week or two earlier, rather than growing from treatable to lethal during the years she and her husband were broke and uninsured. That somehow, Mitt and/or Bain bear no moral responsibility, because, hey, she didn't die until 2006.
The smelling salt sniffing says a lot about how utterly disconnected the MSM is from the reality of life in a middle class the 1% have been slowly, but systematically, grinding into a state of proto-peonage for the last three decades.
I have to agree , people should be held accountable , and that , at least in part , is the point of the ad , healthcare reform was stopped in 1992 by conservatives , gop politicains , and wall st lobbyist , I have read many a personal story on here about people dying the last few years , because they flat out could not get healthcare , that is just a fact of life , no matter how you slice it
Democrats like the obama team have every right to make a point about that , and its spot on
No only one party has been doing it. You can't call what Reid said a lie, it is just an unconfirmed report of what he was told, and the ad was (maybe) a tad misleading (yet still truthful). And more power to Reid for saying it out loud (because many of us were already thinking it anyway). The right has always known that you don't have to tell the truth for people to believe it, and the dems have lost over and over again for playing nice.
"and the dems have lost over and over again for playing nice."
Were you out of the country in 2008?
“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”
― Mark Twain
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
― Adolf Hitler
“A half-truth is the most cowardly of lies.”
― Mark Twain
“Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides.”
André Malraux
“Your hypocrisy insults my intelligence.”
― Toba Beta
“All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we choose to distort it.”
― Woody Allen
Steve, how naive can you be? Halprin is paid big bucks to find false equivalencies where none exist. The poor bastard is just doing his job.
Remember everybody, Romney can't go too far south, too soon or the billionaires will pull their ad money and the network executives will have to eat the cheaper cuts of meat. Nobody will notice that his campaign is perhaps the most dishonest in the last 200 years until after the networks and big newspapers have paid their bills.
The tag line should be "I approve this lie".
Willard! Show us your tax records!
Sam Stein made basically the same argument this morning on Morning Joe - both sides do it. Robert Gibbs tried to highlight the difference between a campaign putting out an ad and a PAC doing the same. According to the MJ crowd, there is no difference.
Does anybody besides me remember Romney defending the ads his PACs put out against Newt Gingrich by saying he wasn't responsible for what an outside group did?
The existence of Halperin is proof that today's "mainstream media professionals" all fall under the category "otherwise-unemployables."
With the equivalencies, people aren't willing to sift through the facts to weigh and score the severity of the deception. Yes, Harry Reid, did something unfair, but it was easy for anyone without knowing the particulars to say, oh that's bad. Whereas for Romney's ad on welfare is not perspicuous. You need to know that the Republican governors asked for the changes, which led to the White House's actions. Then you need someone to point out that Romney's campaign knowingly lies and still does it anyway.
Issues which require an understanding of nuances are the most vulnerable to this kind of deception and most people don't have the time to sift through everything even well written analyses.
If you go to factcheck.org, they'll show you both sides make misleading claims, but you really have to read through to get the degree of the offense. If you go to PolitiFact, they at least have a rating which is easy to grok, but then you get the Harry Reid's recent rating, which this blog deemed questionable, and there's no weighting for how bad saying you have a dodgy source about evading taxes vs. suggesting people are treasonous.
Still ratings help. If you look at the weekly "Mitt Mendacity" blog entries on site, you have a lot of documentation, but it's not easy to grok. It's great there's historical data for past weeks, but mostly it looks like a lot to read through. The ideal would be a point system which a reader could quickly glance over to say, ok this week was even worse than last week. Another ideal would be a way to put side-by-side, week-over-week a comparison of the frequency and degree of Romney's and Obama's deception (or even a comparison of Republicans vs. Democrats overall). A good chart could be truly compelling in showing how the candidates stack up and how deep and persistent a problem this is.
Even with PolitiFact, it would be interesting to see a weekly summary of the candidates as they stand w.r.t. deception per the PolitiFact rating system. Because right now everything gets mixed together, which is intended to demonstrate the non-partisan examination of these issues. However presenting things together this way, even if it shows that both parties are being examined, it hides the pervasiveness of the behavior.
I'm not so sure whatever metrics you end up with will be without argument, but your process itself is simple and forces comparisons we need to see, as long as the focus is the substance of argument and not the numbers by themselves. Over time you might prove something out to make a model for trending analyses, etc. Oh what fun.
Working people with time constraints is the main barrier imo , when I have helped people inquire into such subjects , introducing them to political analysts like mr benen and ms maddow helps , but even then it takes some reading time , the over all political process of america definitely needs reworked , and made more user friendly for active voters
Patango: That is an incredibly salient point regarding working people time constraints and germane to equal access. Working folk can't afford to represent themselves to their own representatives, but large corps and the professionals can hire pros to be at it 24/7. That is a built-in imbalance, seemingly inherent. Campaign donations add access at all to the equation.
Until it is proven that Reid lied, it is unfair to characterize his tactics as unfair. Steve, i have been enjoying your writing for many years and am quite dissapointed at what appears to be nothing short of an audition for a ride on the ole tire swing. You are better than this
"Until it is proven that Reid lied, it is unfair to characterize his tactics as unfair.'
Yes that's why anonymous accusations are so honored by all cultures in all places.
As a matter of fact , they are
Ah the Inquisition weighs in!
Hey, did TRMS notice the attack on Rachel on NPR's Talk of the Nation today? The fact check guy from the Washington Post claimed Rachel criticized Politifact because Politifact criticized Rachel -- I guess he thought Rachel's feelings got hurt. He didn't mention Rachel's actual argument. He also didn't mention that Rachel had just criticized him a few days ago on another issue.
Maybe Rachel hurt his feelings?
I'm confused about this "tenuous chain of causality" notion. The anti-Romney ad only claims that Joe Soptic's family lost their health insurance after Bain Capital closed his plant. Maybe it's slightly imprecise to say that "Romney" closed the plant, but it was his company, and this is the kind of thing he stood for and still stands for. Since Mitt was CEO of Bain Capital, it's perfectly reasonable for an average worker to name him. The ad doesn't claim that Romney was directly or even indirectly responsible for Soptic's wife's death -- her death apparently occurred in part as a result of her husband losing his job. The ad only claims that Soptic's experience typifies the kind of capitalism Mitt Romney stands for, and that we should expect more of it if Mitt Romney is elected -- a capitalism in which the lives of workers are considered unimportant. And that's pretty accurate.
I thought I was the only confused one wondering why others didn't get the whole of the ad the way you did, Frank.
Hey Steve - I call bullshyt on, "Time's Mark Halperin because of his role as an informal barometer of the establishment's attitudes."
Mark Halperin is a dick! -Kevo
What is "unfair" about Senator Reid relating a conversation he had concerning the taxes paid (or not) by the presumptive Republican nominee? The Democrats are campaigning on a platform of increasing tax rates and closing loopholes for the top 5% and corporations. Romney opposes that and, in fact wishes to even further cut the taxes of the rich. What tax rate, if any, Romney has paid is definitely a campaign issue; particularly as he refuses to release his tax returns.
Nor is it a "rumor". Senator Reid said he was told that Romney hadn't paid taxes for 10 years by "a Bain investor" and that the person called the Senator to tell him that .
The only think I worry about is that this is a set-up, a la Rathergate and in the next week or two the person who did call Senator Reid, will declare himself, be identified by Senator Reid and then deny he ever said such a thing.
I hope Senator Reid records his calls...
"I hope Senator Reid records his calls..."
The ones that occur only in his mind . . . not so much.
I am sure that Senator Reid got the call about Romney's taxes, but what about the mainstream media why aren't they going after romney's surragates that are accusing President Obama of all type of "crime".
Shouldn't we all be more concerned with how Obama's spending OUR money than how Romney has spent his?
I was watching the fox five (don't judge me yet) on Sunday or Monday when they began discussing Obama's 'you didn't build that' comment again. Bob quickly cuts in and says that this was horribly taken out of context. Dana Perino tries to dismiss Bob's allegation by insisting on 'taking a collection plate for Obama (not to sure what she meant by that) and that they should settle everything and play the whole Obama speech from beginning to end so that...' and that's the point where you can very clearly see her reaction as someone tells her to shut up on her earpiece.
Obviously, they don't want anybody who watches fox news to get any wise ideas about watching the whole message President Obama was trying to get out there.
I was watching the fox five (don't judge me yet) on Sunday or Monday when they began discussing Obama's 'you didn't build that' comment again. Bob quickly cuts in and says that this was horribly taken out of context. Dana Perino tries to dismiss Bob's allegation by insisting on 'taking a collection plate for Obama (not to sure what she meant by that) and that they should settle everything and play the whole Obama speech from beginning to end so that...' and that's the point where you can very clearly see her reaction as someone tells her to shut up over her earpiece.
Obviously, they don't want anybody who watches fox news to get any wise ideas about watching the whole message President Obama was trying to get out there.
http://www.virtualjfk.com
for one to be racist they must despise themselves and the entire human species they are actually secular neocrypto facist egoist ethnocentric nationalists who should be incarcerated for pathological illness, that we are all at risk of, as they hate five days a week then are weak for ends on the weekends dairy heirs for derrieres Hoboken Hiltons poodle in puddles in Paris, Texas for Taxes
There is no difference. This is silly season. How bout we hear what new new specific policies Obama and Romney will propose to get our country out of our funk?